Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Robert Maynard]

Here is one scenario that doesn't involve combat logging, but does involve avoiding consequences.

Let's say we have Bob, a trader. Bob usually plays in Open. Bob decides to take his shiny new T7 hauler to a system well known for two things: plentiful rare goods and pirates preying on traders. So Bob goes to the system, lands on a station and loads up with the goods.
"What's this?" - says Bob, upon seeing a notification of three new contacts appearing in local. He does what every smart trader does, and checks his comms contacts for the list of player ships.
A Python, a FdL and a Vulture. Doesn't look good. Maybe if he can target them and see who they are...
It's Neckbeard and his cronies!
So what can Bob do? If he undocks, he knows CMDR Neckbeard and his pals are waiting for him. His T7 wouldn't stand a chance, he would get robbed and crunched!

So naughty Bob logs out... and logs back in solo. Whew! He flies out of the station, and to the next system, whereupon he logs out again, and logs back in Open.

Threat avoided... as well as consequence of risking a pirate infested system in a slow, ill-prepared ship.

Pretty much the same as when CMDR Neckbeard cleared his bounty immediately after slaughtering Phil (who didn't switch to Solo), thus avoiding the attention of CMDR Chuck, the famous bounty hunter.

Just because you are a trader doesn't mean you also do not make actions that require consequences to be visited upon you.

And see, that's where FD messed up. They tried to force two incompatible things together. The threat of consequence of your actions and the means to avoid them altogether.

Of course it is possible that mode switching will be used in that way - it's a possibility enabled by the freedom of choice granted by the existing game features. It also negates camping with the specific intention of spoiling someone's game.

Who decides which players, going about their business quietly, interrupting no-one, "require consequences to be visited upon" them? That sounds to be a rather entitled sentiment with respect to others....

One person's "FD messed up" is another person's "I quite like the freedom of choice that the developer has offered us".

With respect to consequences, players cannot avoid all risk - therefore while the risks from other players are reduced / zeroed when playing in private groups / solo, there are still risks - and those remaining risks may be quite enough to suit some players who wish to "play the game how you want to".

The issue at hand seems to revolve to a large extent around the fact that there are players whose preferred play-style involved interaction with other players, whether voluntary or involuntary. It is those players who seem to have particular problems with the ability to mode switch being available to those players with whom they would wish to interact.

 

[Jorlin]

Your problem is you don't read posts before replying.
I didn't say people shouldn't play in solo, or that they shouldn't be able to switch.
I said they shouldn't switch for an advantage. There is no reason that solo should be an advantage, but there are numerous situations where it is.

still a very delicate thing to mess with the solo experiance.
ruin solo and you will ruin open play.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Of course it is possible that mode switching will be used in that way - it's a possibility enabled by the freedom of choice granted by the existing game features. It also negates camping with the specific intention of spoiling someone's game.

Who decides which players, going about their business quietly, interrupting no-one, "require consequences to be visited upon" them? That sounds to be a rather entitled sentiment with respect to others....

One person's "FD messed up" is another person's "I quite like the freedom of choice that the developer has offered us".

With respect to consequences, players cannot avoid all risk - therefore while the risks from other players are reduced / zeroed when playing in private groups / solo, there are still risks - and those remaining risks may be quite enough to suit some players who wish to "play the game how you want to".

The issue at hand seems to revolve to a large extent around the fact that there are players whose preferred play-style involved interaction with other players, whether voluntary or involuntary. It is those players who seem to have particular problems with the ability to mode switch being available to those players with whom they would wish to interact.

Genuine question Robert,
Do you think that having the option of easy or hard mode, in a shared adaptive universe, is a good thing?
Do you think that it is better to be able to negate some risk for you own advantage?

Also, to everyone else, of the switches that are occurring. How many are being done for tactical advantage. A lot of people (the majority of players) I know are deliberately changing modes solely for tactical reasons.
If the feature is being used predominantly for this reason (and I can only surmise it is from my small sample), then it is not fit for purpose.

 

[Meritz]

Of course it is possible that mode switching will be used in that way - it's a possibility enabled by the freedom of choice granted by the existing game features. It also negates camping with the specific intention of spoiling someone's game.

Who decides which players, going about their business quietly, interrupting no-one, "require consequences to be visited upon" them? That sounds to be a rather entitled sentiment with respect to others....

It's really not, but a coldly fair way of looking at things. What you're confusing is game rules and real life "not bothering anyone". That's a very common problem when it comes to freestyle PvP games. Players assume that if they engage in an activity that is non-violent, that the same rules should apply as in real life.

Well, no. If you fly a loaded trader in pirate infested system, you ARE bothering someone, you are bothering pirates. So they get to bother you. If you don't want to bother pirates (or be bothered by them), that's what choosing solo or private group was intended for.

But as soon as you interacted with another player, passively or actively, then used solo or group to avoid the follow-up, you essentially do the same thing as pirates clearing bounties to avoid persecution, or also switching to solo when there is a posse of well armed bounty hunters waiting for them to undock from a station. You're gaming the system.

The problem we have, and will probably always have when discussing topics such as this IS entitlement. But it is not always obvious who are the guilty parties...

 

[Jorlin]

Genuine question Robert,
Do you think that having the option of easy or hard mode, in a shared adaptive universe, is a good thing?
Do you think that it is better to be able to negate some risk for you own advantage?

Also, to everyone else, of the switches that are occurring. How many are being done for tactical advantage. A lot of people (the majority of players) I know are deliberately changing modes solely for tactical reasons.
If the feature is being used predominantly for this reason (and I can only surmise it is from my small sample), then it is not fit for purpose.

Problem with your small sample is, you only see "this type" of switchers when playing in open. So it seems like it's close to 100%.
What you don't see are people like me... playing almost 100% in solo but that want to keep the option of switching "just in case".

 

[Sim Maker]

If a player stays in Solo.......fine.......if a player stays in a group......fine..........but yeah, switching in and out of Open/Solo for tactical advantage over Open...is an Exploit...pure and simple.......
.
It is just another version of Combat Logging.....

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Your problem is you don't read posts before replying.
I didn't say people shouldn't play in solo, or that they shouldn't be able to switch.
I said they shouldn't switch for an advantage. There is no reason that solo should be an advantage, but there are numerous situations where it is.

I agree solo has potential advantages but can we also agree that all has potential advantages all of their own?

In all you can squad up in wings of 4 in solo no help.

In all you get bonus pay off for playing in a group

I am all for encouraging players into all by making it an attractive place to play and I am definitely a swing voter I WANT back in all

You say you are not trying to block group hopping... Fair enough but many are..

The snag is to have a balanced discussion about fixing problems all groups have to admit there is a problem to fix... And for the most part here aside from some outliers 2 of the 3 groups don't think there is anything to fix (again for the most part)

 

[OldSalt]

Here is one scenario that doesn't involve combat logging, but does involve avoiding consequences.

Let's say we have Bob, a trader. Bob usually plays in Open. Bob decides to take his shiny new T7 hauler to a system well known for two things: plentiful rare goods and pirates preying on traders. So Bob goes to the system, lands on a station and loads up with the goods.
"What's this?" - says Bob, upon seeing a notification of three new contacts appearing in local. He does what every smart trader does, and checks his comms contacts for the list of player ships.
A Python, a FdL and a Vulture. Doesn't look good. Maybe if he can target them and see who they are...
It's Neckbeard and his cronies!
So what can Bob do? If he undocks, he knows CMDR Neckbeard and his pals are waiting for him. His T7 wouldn't stand a chance, he would get robbed and crunched!

So naughty Bob logs out... and logs back in solo. Whew! He flies out of the station, and to the next system, whereupon he logs out again, and logs back in Open.

Threat avoided... as well as consequence of risking a pirate infested system in a slow, ill-prepared ship.

Pretty much the same as when CMDR Neckbeard cleared his bounty immediately after slaughtering Phil (who didn't switch to Solo), thus avoiding the attention of CMDR Chuck, the famous bounty hunter.

Just because you are a trader doesn't mean you also do not make actions that require consequences to be visited upon you.

And see, that's where FD messed up. They tried to force two incompatible things together. The threat of consequence of your actions and the means to avoid them altogether.

Ok, but from a sound tactical perspective what would you suggest Bob did instead ? As I see it he could wait the threat out, log out, make a cup of tea, log back in (and because of the game architecture) be in another instance and go about his business. He could put Neckbeard and his pals on his ignore list and forget about them....etc,etc.


All of your arguments revolve around the premise of forcing players together in a game that doesn't support that, it has been designed so that in so many ways it was clearly never intended to do that. Sorry to say it Meritz but you are clearly playing the wrong game.

Oh yes, why was he 'naughty' ?!

 

[Jorlin]

If a player stays in Solo.......fine.......if a player stays in a group......fine..........but yeah, switching in and out of Open/Solo for tactical advantage over Open...is an Exploit...pure and simple.......
.
It is just another version of Combat Logging.....

but where to draw the line for "tactical advantage"?
opting out of "open" for an evening because i just want to be alone for a while?

 

[Asp Explorer]

The problem we have, and will probably always have when discussing topics such as this IS entitlement. But it is not always obvious who are the guilty parties...

Well if it's entitlement you want to address - rabble rousing pew-pew's who feel entitled to interfere in some players game time may have to mildly readjust their expectations. Some players don't take kindly to mindless PvP Pro Bro's firing upon them for absolutely no reason. Those poor, disadvantaged people feel left out and neglected by society, so they shall rise up and take what they believe is rightfully theirs - by overwhelming force if necessary.

Of course, someone's CPU cycles, hard drive space, network bandwidth, electricity costs, ISP charges, heating, food, you name it - are all things that the B00mh3@dsh0tbro's are not entitled to. If an annoying player believes for one nanosecond that they have any right to force themselves upon another player unwillingly - well, the next second he's got nobody but himself to play with - which is all he is ever entitled to.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

still a very delicate thing to mess with the solo experiance.
ruin solo and you will ruin open play.

I would be more tempted to adapt the switching mechanism, than try and buff or nerf each mode.
The fundamental idea of switching should remain, but restrict its use as an exploit.
.

• Maybe you get 2 free switches in 48hrs. after that there is a substantial fee.
• Maybe there is a charge
• Maybe you can only switch at certain portal stations
• Maybe you have a switch cooldown period

Someone really needs to look at the data, and see what is actually happening. when are these switches occurring? are we seeing some who switch many times in a session. Does there seem to be a valid reason for it? Is this issue genuine, and how prevalent is it.
In my opinion, using any out of game mechanic, for an advantage, is cheating. Whether that is switching modes, combat logging, even logging out to get a different instance.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Genuine question Robert,
Do you think that having the option of easy or hard mode, in a shared adaptive universe, is a good thing?
Do you think that it is better to be able to negate some risk for you own advantage?

Also, to everyone else, of the switches that are occurring. How many are being done for tactical advantage. A lot of people (the majority of players) I know are deliberately changing modes solely for tactical reasons.
If the feature is being used predominantly for this reason (and I can only surmise it is from my small sample), then it is not fit for purpose.

This presupposes that, on average, one mode is significantly more difficult than the others - outside of the player populated areas it is difficult to tell the difference between open and solo.

It is my opinion that the benefits of group switching with respect to freedom of choice for the individual player outweigh the disadvantages to some players who consider it to be a tactical tool.

It is human nature to mitigate risks that are considered to be "not worth it". Some player seek out combat, an inherently risky pastime, others run from it.

Not everyone is playing the game to be emotionally stimulated to the degree that some players seem to get when engaged in combat.

 

[Antmax]

Your problem is you don't read posts before replying.
I didn't say people shouldn't play in solo, or that they shouldn't be able to switch.
I said they shouldn't switch for an advantage. There is no reason that solo should be an advantage, but there are numerous situations where it is.

I got it, but there are always going to be ways to get an advantage, and there are obvious ways in solo. Doesn't mean you should punish a large portion of the player base for the actions of a few.

If you have buddies in open you can find sneaky ways to sacrifice one another for bounties and make use of quick and easy profit too. And though not in a CZ, if you hunt for bounties in open you have the potential to make millions from collecting a single bounty where in other modes it's rare that anything exceeds 200k. So you do get exponentially higher rewards for high risk activities in open that don't exist in solo and to some mostly PvE groups too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If a player stays in Solo.......fine.......if a player stays in a group......fine..........but yeah, switching in and out of Open/Solo for tactical advantage over Open...is an Exploit...pure and simple.......
.
It is just another version of Combat Logging.....

Given that a player has to be logged out to mode switch, what's the difference, from the perspective of an observer, between a player logging out for the night and a player logging out of open and back in in solo?

Combat logging is a different issue entirely.

 

[Meritz]

Ok, but from a sound tactical perspective what would you suggest Bob did instead ? As I see it he could wait the threat out, log out, make a cup of tea, log back in (and because of the game architecture) be in another instance and go about his business. He could put Neckbeard and his pals on his ignore list and forget about them....etc,etc.

Bob has made a mistake. He brought a slow hauler into a known pirate haunt. Or perhaps Bob has made the mistake of not learning about that system in advance. He knew there were plenty of rare goods to be had, which should have told him that it would be a popular system with traders - as well as people who prey on traders.

In short, Bob did not prepare well. So what now?

Well, he can wait for pirates to leave. He can maybe wait for them to focus on another trader and slip by while they're busy.

He can load up with heat sinks, drop his temp real low, engage silent mode and pray they're not paying attention.

He can bait them into shooting at him while he's in the no-fire zone, thus provoking the station to open fire on them.

He can try and hug the station to put it between himself and his pursuers, though that would probably not work.

He can give them cargo.

And he can get himself blown up.

Putting Neckbeard on his ignore list and logging in and out is also gaming the system. The point is, if you choose to play in Open, you have to deal with the consequences of player interaction, good or bad. And FD gave all players multiple ways NOT to do that, thus defeating the main premise of Open gameplay, choice and consequence. They tried to force two incompatible concepts together. The results were really predictable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would be more tempted to adapt the switching mechanism, than try and buff or nerf each mode.
The fundamental idea of switching should remain, but restrict its use as an exploit.
.

• Maybe you get 2 free switches in 48hrs. after that there is a substantial fee.
• Maybe there is a charge
• Maybe you can only switch at certain portal stations
• Maybe you have a switch cooldown period

Someone really needs to look at the data, and see what is actually happening. when are these switches occurring? are we seeing some who switch many times in a session. Does there seem to be a valid reason for it? Is this issue genuine, and how prevalent is it.
In my opinion, using any out of game mechanic, for an advantage, is cheating. Whether that is switching modes, combat logging, even logging out to get a different instance.

Portal stations sound like likely campsites for players seeking PvP.

Maybe the existing game feature is just fine as it is and does not need to be tinkered with in an attempt to satisfy those whose play-style necessarily requires other players.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Problem with your small sample is, you only see "this type" of switchers when playing in open. So it seems like it's close to 100%.
What you don't see are people like me... playing almost 100% in solo but that want to keep the option of switching "just in case".

well... by definition, these switchers are in both open and solo. But yes, you can only see them in open.
I do not have a problem with people switching. It is switching for an advantage that is the issue.
If anything, having the balance the other way around would make more sense. Why does someone in solo care if someone else is getting an advantage? They will never experience it in any way (unless they move to open). Open players could be gifted billions of credits, and have their pick of the ships, with an added double elite ranking, and it matters not one iota to a solo player.
However, the other way causes a problem. People are encouraged by game mechanics to jump to solo to avoid risk, and get greater reward. Does this help other players in solo? no. Does it damage and unbalance open? Yes.
Again I'll say, tactical switching was not the primary function of this feature. It is being exploited and ultimately damaging the entire elite universe (but most predominantly open mode).

 

[Meritz]

Well if it's entitlement you want to address - rabble rousing pew-pew's who feel entitled to interfere in some players game time may have to mildly readjust their expectations. Some players don't take kindly to mindless PvP Pro Bro's firing upon them for absolutely no reason. Those poor, disadvantaged people feel left out and neglected by society, so they shall rise up and take what they believe is rightfully theirs - by overwhelming force if necessary.

Again you are mixing up real life and game rules. Prejudice has no weight as an argument. I don't listen to people calling other players carebears just because they like a peaceful way of doing things, why should I listen to you calling those who prefer more violent gameplay "rabble rousing pew-pew's"?

But to make a game where two can meet, and then give each the means to tweak the game to their advantage (same problem exists with pirates and THEIR predators, the bounty hunters), results in a predictable mess. Solo and Group play, I believe, were never intended as trump cards for Open gameplay, but rather, as choices to be made in advance, so that players can enjoy the game as they like. Alas, human nature was not considered. When you're "making the game you want to play" there is always the danger you will not consider that others may not play it the way you would.

 

[fademist]

well... by definition, these switchers are in both open and solo. But yes, you can only see them in open.
I do not have a problem with people switching. It is switching for an advantage that is the issue.
If anything, having the balance the other way around would make more sense. Why does someone in solo care if someone else is getting an advantage? They will never experience it in any way (unless they move to open). Open players could be gifted billions of credits, and have their pick of the ships, with an added double elite ranking, and it matters not one iota to a solo player.
However, the other way causes a problem. People are encouraged by game mechanics to jump to solo to avoid risk, and get greater reward. Does this help other players in solo? no. Does it damage and unbalance open? Yes.
Again I'll say, tactical switching was not the primary function of this feature. It is being exploited and ultimately damaging the entire elite universe (but most predominantly open mode).

more dmg is from open pro players whine than that...

 

[Jockey79]

...It is being exploited ....

Prove it.

Switching has been part of the design for years and lots of examples have been given why someone may want to switch. So you cannot declare it an "exploit" unless FD says it is (like they did with combat loggin)